6 NICS App. 26, IN RE THE WELFARE OF PENN (December 2000)
IN THE CHEHALIS TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
CHEHALIS INDIAN RESERVATION
OAKVILLE, WASHINGTON
In Re the Welfare Of: Ruth Ann Penn, Tribal Elder
No. CHE-CIV-11/99-230 (December 15, 2000)
SYLLABUS*
Because no final order was issued by trial court, Court of Appeals denied the appeal as not ripe for review.
Before: Darwin S. Long Fox, Chief Justice; Lisa E. Brodoff, Justice; Lorintha Warwick, Justice.
OPINION
This matter came before the Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Virginia Garity (hereinafter, "Garity"). Although Garity does not specifically state as such, it appears she appeals from the October 9, 2000 Review Order of the trial court.
Garity's appeal is two‑fold. First, she requests a judicial decision to determine whether Joyleen Klatush, case manager for Chehalis Tribal Family Services, is "in compliance with the license requirements under the differing jurisdictions in this matter." Second, she requests a judicial decision to determine whether sufficient documentation exists to demonstrate a conflict of interest regarding Klatush's fiduciary duties, and her private interests elsewhere.
This appeal is not ripe for review at this time. The issues Garity raises have not yet been addressed at either the administrative or trial levels. This Court, therefore, does not have a final order, a record of proceedings, nor a list of possible errors of law or procedure to review.
The issues in Garity's appeal have not been addressed at the trial level in order for it to render a final order. Under the Chehalis Appellate rules, "[a]n aggrieved party who claims, in good faith, that the Chehalis Court of Justice made an error of law or procedure which affected the outcome of the case may seek review in the Court of Appeals of any final order..." (Italics ours.) Chapter 5.3.01. Garity must exhaust all possible remedies before this appeal can reach the level of this Court. Perhaps she should first consider the administrative level where Family Services could replace Klatush with another case manager. If this is not an option, Garity can
6 NICS App. 26, IN RE THE WELFARE OF PENN (December 2000) p. 27
then file a claim where the trial court can address these issues. Should Garity not agree with that decision, she can finally file a notice of appeal where this Court can review the trial court's final order.
This Court also does not have a record or proceedings nor a list of possible errors of law or procedure to limit its review in this matter. Under the Chehalis Appellate Rules, "[t]he Court of Appeals shall limit its review to 1) the record of proceedings from the Chehalis Court of Justice..." Chapter 5.3.03. Moreover, "[a] notice of appeal... shall…list each error of law or procedure which the appellant claims was committed by the Chehalis Court of Justice and its effect on the outcome of the case." Chapter 5.4.02. Garity requests a judicial decision to determine whether Klatush is in compliance with license requirement, and if a conflict of interest exists. It is not the duty of this Court to make this determination. Rather, it is the duty of the trial court to take the facts plus the law to equal a conclusion in this matter. Only then will this Court have a record of proceedings and list of possible errors of law or procedure to review.
Therefore, based on the foregoing,
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Garity's appeal is denied. Garity has not yet exhausted her possible remedies in this matter, thus making this appeal not ripe for this Court.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.